Manu:
In the case of ref, I can't think of any programmers that I've
introduced to D that haven't complained about ref within their
first
hour or 2 of interaction.
Most of the times I have no problems with D ref. Perhaps you are
trying to use D too much like you use C++.
I'd never have my PR's pulled.
"Working from the inside" also means writing patches that have a
sufficiently high probability of getting pulled after some
changes and improvements.
I'm also not as interested in language development as it might
appear.
Yet you discuss about language design all the time. I've
discussed a lot about D, but often the topics that I have a bit
more reliable opinions on are only the ones where I have direct
experience (like Ranges). That's why I have suggested to write
patches. With them you may be able to refine your own opinions
about D.
Yeah, it's just too weird for me to find realistic.
I don't see it so much weird. It's a lot like a C crossed with
the most obvious and simplified parts of ML, plus memory areas
tracking, and small bits from Erlang and C++ and little more. It
contains only small amounts of OOP, exceptions and GC, and
currently its generics are still first order only, so it looks
simple and coesive. I think an average programmer can learn it
enough to be productive for single-thread user code (not for
library code) in two or three months or less. But I think you
should not even try to use it as you use Ada (unlike D).
Bye,
bearophile
